Applying the Ten-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Step 1 is not a summary of the scenario. It’s not background information. It’s the ethical dilemma — the specific conflict between two or more competing professional obligations that makes this situation genuinely difficult. If your response describes what happened rather than what the ethical tension is, you haven’t completed Step 1.

A useful test: can you state the dilemma as a conflict between two values, duties, or rights? For Scenario 1, the core tension is between the partner’s claim to decision-making authority and the biological family’s competing claim — in the absence of a legal mechanism to resolve it. For Scenario 2, it’s between the mandatory legal duty to report and the ethical duty of confidentiality and client self-determination. State that conflict directly. Don’t work up to it.

Step 2 has the most generous word limit in the first half of the worksheet. Use it to be thorough. The question asks for at least two individuals, groups, or organizations — but “at least two” means you should be covering the full stakeholder picture in 150 words, not just naming the most obvious parties.

For each stakeholder, identify their role in the situation and how your decision could affect them. Role is specific: “Mr. Takahashi’s daughter” has a different role than “Mr. Takahashi’s biological children as a group,” and both have different roles than “the daycare center staff.” The daycare center, in particular, is often omitted — but it’s a stakeholder with its own institutional obligations, liability exposure, and professional duties.

Think about direct and indirect stakeholders. The client is always primary. But the family members, the organization, the social worker, and potentially the state all have stakes in how the dilemma is resolved. Identify each by role, not just by name.

This is the step most students get half-right. They name general ethical principles — dignity, self-determination, confidentiality — but don’t cite the specific sections of the NASW Code of Ethics that enshrine those principles. The assignment asks for at least one ethical principle and two ethical standards. Those are distinct things in the NASW Code’s structure.

The NASW Code has six core values, each associated with ethical principles. It also has detailed ethical standards grouped by context. When Step 3 asks for an ethical principle, it means one of those core principle statements. When it asks for ethical standards, it means specific, citable standards from the Code — with their section numbers. “Confidentiality” is a theme. “NASW Code of Ethics, Section 1.07” is a standard. That specificity is what the step is testing. The full NASW Code is publicly available at naswcode.org and is a citable source for this step.

Step 4 is uncomfortable by design. Social work education asks you to identify not just where the scenario presents value conflicts, but where your own biases and potential conflicts of interest might affect your professional judgment. That’s what “conflicting values, potential biases, and possible conflicts of interest” means.

The values conflict is in the scenario — autonomy vs. beneficence, client confidentiality vs. mandatory reporting. But the bias component is personal: does the scenario trigger assumptions based on your own cultural background, family structure, religious beliefs, or views on LGBTQ+ relationships? Does the scenario create a conflict of interest — for example, if you have personal views about same-sex partnership that could affect how you advocate for Mr. Lee? This step requires self-awareness, not just content knowledge. Be direct about it. Fifty words is tight — name the values conflict, name the bias, name the conflict of interest. No elaboration.

The brief says “identify at least one state statutory law by statute.” That means a named, citable law — not “laws about confidentiality” or “reporting requirements.” You need an actual statute: the name of the law, the statute number, the state it applies to, and a one-to-two sentence explanation of how it applies to this specific scenario. This is one of the harder steps for students who aren’t familiar with how to locate state statutes.

For Scenario 1, the relevant statute will depend on the state you set the scenario in (most scenarios like this are set in a specific state, or students choose one). You’re looking for your state’s healthcare surrogate or proxy statute — the law that governs who has authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated adult when no advance directive exists. The hierarchy typically prioritizes legal spouses, then adult children, then parents, then close friends. Mr. Lee, as an unmarried partner, typically falls at the bottom of this hierarchy or outside it entirely — which is the crux of the legal tension in this scenario.

For Scenario 2, you’re looking for your state’s mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse or sexual abuse, and potentially the statutory rape law (age of consent statute). In most states, a 26-year-old engaging in sexual activity with a 15-year-old is statutory rape regardless of consent — and social workers are mandatory reporters with a legal obligation to report.

Your state legislature’s website or a legal database like Justia or Cornell’s Legal Information Institute can help you locate the specific statute text. The NASW also publishes state-by-state practice guides that reference relevant statutes for social workers.

Step 6 asks for at least two actions taken when consulting with a colleague, supervisor, or legal expert. The key word is “actions.” Not who you talked to — what you decided or did as a result of that consultation.

The step is testing whether you understand consultation as a professional practice tool, not just a box to check. A colleague might help you reality-check your instinct about the dilemma. A supervisor can clarify agency policy and your professional obligations. A legal expert — particularly relevant for Scenario 2 — clarifies the mandatory reporting obligation and the process for making that report correctly. For each consultation, state who you consulted, what the specific action or decision was, and why that action was the right professional response given the consultation’s input. Fifty words forces you to be surgical.

Step 7 is doing a lot in 100 words: two courses of action, each with its consequences, benefits, risks, and identified participants. That’s eight content points in a hundred words. Every sentence has to carry weight. Don’t name three or four actions and give each one a single sentence — that produces a list, not an analysis. Pick two meaningful, contrasting courses of action and treat each one with specificity.

What makes a good course of action for this step? It should be a real professional response — not a fantasy or an impossible option. It should differ from the other option in a meaningful, consequential way. And it should have genuine, case-specific benefits and risks — not generic pros and cons that would apply to any scenario. For Scenario 2, one course of action might be making the mandatory report immediately and another might be disclosing to Chris first and giving them agency in how the report is filed. Both are real options. Both have specific consequences for Chris, the parents, Bruce, the therapeutic relationship, and your professional standing.

Step 8 requires a decision. Name the action you chose. State why you chose it over the alternative. That “why” should connect back to the NASW Code, the law identified in Step 5, and the professional values at stake. A rationale that just says “this was the more ethical choice” isn’t a rationale — it’s a conclusion without reasoning.

The strongest Step 8 responses acknowledge the trade-off. You’re not choosing the option with no downside. You’re choosing the option where the ethical and legal weight of its benefits outweighs the ethical and legal weight of its costs. Name that trade-off explicitly. Say what you’re giving up and why what you’re gaining is worth it. That’s professional judgment — and it’s what this step is testing.

Step 9 is practical. Not “communicate with the client” in the abstract — what specifically do you say, when, to whom, and in what sequence? Implementation steps should be ordered. They should name the specific people involved. They should reference the specific action chosen in Step 8. If you chose to file a mandatory report in Scenario 2, your implementation steps might be: (1) document the disclosure and your assessment in the client record immediately; (2) notify Chris of your legal obligation and what will happen next before making the report; (3) contact the appropriate reporting agency (Child Protective Services or equivalent) and provide the mandated information. That sequence is operational, specific, and traceable back to a professional obligation.

Avoid implementation steps that are more accurately described as rationale. “Consider the ethical implications” is not an implementation step — that belongs in Steps 7 and 8. Implementation steps are actions, not reflections.

Step 10 is evaluation — not reflection or self-congratulation. It asks how you would assess whether the course of action was effective and appropriate. That means identifying specific indicators or processes. How would you know, after the fact, that your decision was professionally sound? What would you look for?

Two categories of evaluation matter here. First: did the action achieve its intended professional goal? For Scenario 2, did the report reach the appropriate agency? Was Chris kept safe? Did the therapeutic relationship survive in some form? Second: is the decision defensible on professional and ethical grounds? Does the documentation support the rationale? Would a peer review or supervisor review of the case confirm you acted in accordance with the NASW Code and applicable law? State at least two concrete evaluation steps — not two abstract feelings about whether you did the right thing.

Step 1 gets 50 words to identify the ethical dilemma. The most common use of those 50 words is retelling parts of the scenario. That’s not a dilemma identification — it’s a case summary. The instructor already knows the scenario. What they’re marking in Step 1 is whether you can isolate the specific competing ethical obligations that create the dilemma. Name the conflict between two professional duties or values and stop. Everything else is background that belongs nowhere in Step 1.

Writing “the NASW Code of Ethics emphasizes confidentiality” does not satisfy Step 3’s requirement for two ethical standards. Confidentiality is a theme. NASW Code Section 1.07(a) is an ethical standard. The difference matters because the worksheet asks you to apply specific provisions of the Code to the specific facts of the scenario — not gesture toward general values. Look up the section numbers. Cite them. Explain in one sentence each how that specific provision applies to what’s happening in your chosen scenario.

Step 4 asks about conflicting values, potential biases, and possible conflicts of interest. The values conflict in the scenario is one part of this. But “potential biases” and “possible conflicts of interest” are asking about the practitioner — about you. What assumptions might a social worker bring to this scenario that could affect their professional judgment? That requires self-reflection, not case analysis. A response that only discusses the values tension in the scenario and never addresses the practitioner’s potential biases has not fully answered the question.

The directions say “include in-text citations.” That means every specific claim you make about a legal standard, an ethical code provision, or a scholarly concept should be followed by a parenthetical citation. Many students write all ten steps without a single in-text citation and then list three references at the end. That doesn’t meet the requirement. Place citations where you make the specific claims they support — in Step 3 when citing the NASW Code, in Step 5 when citing the statute, and in any other step where you reference a source.

Step 8 is where students often write the most confident-sounding responses — and sometimes the most intellectually thin ones. Stating that you chose Action A because it best protects the client’s dignity is a starting point, not a complete rationale. What did you give up by not choosing Action B? What risk does Action A carry that you’re accepting? What specific ethical standard or legal obligation tipped the balance? The response that acknowledges the genuine difficulty of the choice — and can still defend the choice made — demonstrates the professional judgment the model is designed to assess.